Friday, September 21, 2012

By Paul Krugman
September 20, 2012
By now everyone knows how Mitt Romney, speaking to donors in Boca Raton, washed his hands of almost half the country — the 47 percent who don’t pay income taxes — declaring, “My job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.” By now, also, many people are aware that the great bulk of the 47 percent are hardly moochers; most are working families who pay payroll taxes, and elderly or disabled Americans make up a majority of the rest.
But here’s the question: Should we imagine that Mr. Romney and his party would think better of the 47 percent on learning that the great majority of them actually are or were hard workers, who very much have taken personal responsibility for their lives? And the answer is no.
For the fact is that the modern Republican Party just doesn’t have much respect for people who work for other people, no matter how faithfully and well they do their jobs. All the party’s affection is reserved for “job creators,” a k a employers and investors. Leading figures in the party find it hard even to pretend to have any regard for ordinary working families — who, it goes without saying, make up the vast majority of Americans.
Am I exaggerating? Consider the Twitter message sent out by Eric Cantor, the Republican House majority leader, on Labor Day — a holiday that specifically celebrates America’s workers. Here’s what it said, in its entirety: “Today, we celebrate those who have taken a risk, worked hard, built a business and earned their own success.” Yes, on a day set aside to honor workers, all Mr. Cantor could bring himself to do was praise their bosses.
Lest you think that this was just a personal slip, consider Mr. Romney’s acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. What did he have to say about American workers? Actually, nothing: the words “worker” or “workers” never passed his lips. This was in strong contrast to President Obama’s convention speech a week later, which put a lot of emphasis on workers — especially, of course, but not only, workers who benefited from the auto bailout.
And when Mr. Romney waxed rhapsodic about the opportunities America offered to immigrants, he declared that they came in pursuit of “freedom to build a business.” What about those who came here not to found businesses, but simply to make an honest living? Not worth mentioning.
Needless to say, the G.O.P.’s disdain for workers goes deeper than rhetoric. It’s deeply embedded in the party’s policy priorities. Mr. Romney’s remarks spoke to a widespread belief on the right that taxes on working Americans are, if anything, too low. Indeed, The Wall Street Journal famously described low-income workers whose wages fall below the income-tax threshold as “lucky duckies.”
What really needs cutting, the right believes, are taxes on corporate profits, capital gains, dividends, and very high salaries — that is, taxes that fall on investors and executives, not ordinary workers. This despite the fact that people who derive their income from investments, not wages — people like, say, Willard Mitt Romney — already pay remarkably little in taxes.
Where does this disdain for workers come from? Some of it, obviously, reflects the influence of money in politics: big-money donors, like the ones Mr. Romney was speaking to when he went off on half the nation, don’t live paycheck to paycheck. But it also reflects the extent to which the G.O.P. has been taken over by an Ayn Rand-type vision of society, in which a handful of heroic businessmen are responsible for all economic good, while the rest of us are just along for the ride.
In the eyes of those who share this vision, the wealthy deserve special treatment, and not just in the form of low taxes. They must also receive respect, indeed deference, at all times. That’s why even the slightest hint from the president that the rich might not be all that — that, say, some bankers may have behaved badly, or that even “job creators” depend on government-built infrastructure — elicits frantic cries that Mr. Obama is a socialist.
Now, such sentiments aren’t new; “Atlas Shrugged” was, after all, published in 1957. In the past, however, even Republican politicians who privately shared the elite’s contempt for the masses knew enough to keep it to themselves and managed to fake some appreciation for ordinary workers. At this point, however, the party’s contempt for the working class is apparently too complete, too pervasive to hide.
The point is that what people are now calling the Boca Moment wasn’t some trivial gaffe. It was a window into the true attitudes of what has become a party of the wealthy, by the wealthy, and for the wealthy, a party that considers the rest of us unworthy of even a pretense of respect.
Wrap...

Thursday, September 20, 2012

September 19, 2012
Our topic for today is: When Bad Things Happen to Mitt Romney by Gail Collins.
Really, it’s been the worst run of disasters this side of the Mayan calendar. The Republicans’ woes started last Friday, when Ann and Mitt filmed a TV interview in which they entertained the kind of personal questions that most candidates learned to avoid after Bill Clinton did that boxers-versus-briefs thing. Asked what he wears to bed, Mitt said: “I think the best answer is: as little as possible.”
Euww.
Then, over the weekend, Romney aides began spilling their guts about how other staffers had screwed up the Republicans’ bounce-free convention. In an attempt to change the conversation, the campaign announced that it had just realized the nation wants Romney to say what he’d actually do as president. Voters “are eager to hear more details about policies to turn our economy around,” said an adviser, Ed Gillespie.
In search of just such specificity, the scoop-hungry Christian Broadcasting Network asked Paul Ryan if he would continue refusing to identify exactly what tax loopholes the Romney administration would close in order to turn our economy around.
“Yes,” said Ryan, who then veered into a disquisition about something that once happened to Tip O’Neill.
You may be wondering whatever became of Ryan, who was such a big sensation when Romney first picked him as a running mate. Since Tampa, he seems to have fallen off the face of the earth, resurfacing every now and then to put up another ad for re-election to his House seat in Wisconsin.
It’s not all that unusual for a vice-presidential candidate to go low-profile. And it is totally not true that Mitt Romney strapped Paul Ryan to the top of a car and drove him to Canada. Stop spreading rumors!
Next, Mother Jones published that video of the fund-raiser in Boca Raton in which Romney said that 47 percent of the country is composed of moochers who want to confiscate the earnings of hard-working stockbrokers and spend it on caviar and dialysis treatments.
“So my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives,” Romney decreed, undoubtedly more in sorrow than in anger.
Then, Republican Senate candidates in tight races began distancing themselves from the top of the ticket.
Ann Romney suggested Mitt was “taken out of context,” in what was undoubtedly meant as a helpful comment.
“All of us make mistakes,” said President Obama, in what probably wasn’t.
“Obviously inarticulate,” decreed Paul Ryan, popping up from a gopher hole somewhere in Nevada.
The fund-raiser, a $50,000-a-pop sit-down dinner, was hosted by Marc Leder, a financier who The New York Post reported as having a “wild party” last summer in the Hamptons “where guests cavorted nude in the pool” while “scantily dressed Russians danced on platforms.” You cannot blame Romney for that. If presidential candidates had to avoid all multimillionaires who held parties with naked guests and Russians on platforms, there would be no money for misleading TV commercials.
The video was a reminder of how ghastly this business of running for president can be. The guests seemed more interested in the breadbasket than the candidate. Romney was blathering away in the manner of somebody trying to stay awake during the 12th hour of a cross-country drive.
On Tuesday, moving to tamp down criticism that he was a conversational disaster area, Romney told Fox’s Neil Cavuto: “Well, we were, of course, talking about a campaign and how he’s going to get close to half the votes. I’m going to get half the vote, approximately. I hope — I want to get 50.1 percent or more.”
With that out of the way, Romney explained that his real point had not been to criticize people who don’t pay income taxes, but merely to point out that he wanted them to make more money. “I think people would like to be paying taxes,” added the quarter-billionaire whose own eagerness to be part of the solution is a matter of public record.
How did he let things slip out of control? Maybe the answer lies back with that Ann-and-Mitt interview, which was on “Live With Kelly and Michael.” Asked about his preferences when it came to heroines of low-end reality TV shows, the future presidential candidate enthusiastically announced: “I’m kind of a Snooki fan. Look how tiny she’s gotten. She’s lost weight and she’s energetic. I mean, just her sparkplug personality is kind of fun.”
It could be worse. He could have announced that he enjoys spending his free hours watching “Hoarders” marathons. But, still, it’s weird that Mitt Romney appears to think a lot about Snooki. Is it possible that while he’s being dragged around from one fund-raiser to the next, he spends his spare time watching “Jersey Shore” reruns in the limo?
That would explain so much.
Wrap...

Sunday, September 16, 2012

KILL THE DEATH PENALTY
by
Keith Taylor
Don't hold your breath but it is possible Californians will finally join several other progressive, freethinking states and repeal one of the dumbest laws in the nation? The local ACLU and a few other outfits have placed a referendum on the November ballot which will not only save us more than $150 million per year, it will allow us to hold up our heads with the dignity of acting rationally.
If the referendum flies, we will have done away with the California death penalty -- a no-brainer in a world dominated by religious fervor. The referendum will not turn killers loose, but it will make them spend their lives in prison rather than just sit around death row while waiting interminably to be executed.
The measure sounds good even the conservatives could get on board. They talk of saving money and here is their chance. Capital punishment costs billions of dollars over the years, even if it is almost never carried out. That ought to be a enough to get the attention even of a tea partier.
Or maybe not . Californians showed their sympathies back in 1977 just as soon as the Supreme court decided strapping a person in a chair and poisining him (sometimes her) wasn't cruel and inhuman after all.
The state considered, at least by its own citizens, the most progressive in the country recalled three members of the state Supreme Court in 1986, including the chief justice, Rose Bird, for overturning the decisions of jurors and halting their executions.
Ironically the California "supremes" were following the mandate of the Federal Supreme Court which ruled courts could not dismiss jurors who did not believe in the death penalty.
But the nuances of the law didn't matter. Our message to the world was pure Tea Party Rhetoric: we don't want no wimps thwarting our right to kill people.
If it's any consolation, Texans, especially their governor, look even more irrational. Governor Rick Perry broke George Bush's personal record for killing people and is proceeding apace. Perry had already stated that executions don't bother him a bit. Perhaps he's becoming inured to killing. He holds the modern record for it at 236, and his most loyal followers love him for it.
Such is politics in America today. Bill Clinton once left a campaign to hurry home to Arkansas so he could ensure the execution of a fellow with an IQ so low he didn't understand he was sentenced to die. As they marched him off to the execution chamber he saved the dessert from his last meal for later. Our much maligned uber liberal politician took a short cut through civilized behavior on his way to high office.
But some see the light. Thirteen men on death row in Illinois were found to be innocent, no thanks to the government which sent them there. No, these guys were exonerated by members of a college journalism class. Then, Governor Ryan, a conservative no less, halted all pending executions.
Ryan followed with a push for Illinois to join the states who don't have it as an option. Despite the stark evidence that innocent people can be sentenced to death, his legislature refused to enact a law prohibiting it.
Death penalty information.org tells us: "According to a survy of the former and present presidents of the country's top academic criminological societies, 88% of these experts rejected the notion that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder."
I shudder at this frenzy to kill people. My biggest objection is not limited to what it does to those executed. It is what it does to otherwise ordinary citizens.
When he was Texas governor, George W. Bush mocked convicted killer Karla Faye Tucker because she pled for mercy. Then he invoked the name of God in allowing the execution to be carried out. Bush and God were a fearsome combination when it came to carrying out the more stringent edicts of the good book.
On December 13th 2005, the deposed mayor of San diego got in his licks at Tookie Williams's execution at San Quinton. Roger Hedgecock who had been arguing in favor of the execution, read a parady of The Night Before Chistmas." The goulish parady ended with Tookie squealed like a pig when they gave him the needle.
Even killers are people. Their deaths should not be mocked.
California should join the seventeen states which have abolished the death penalty. It's time Americans grow up and stop celebrating the things which deamean us.
//Keith Taylor is a retired navy officer living in Chula Vista. He can be reached at krtaylorxyz@aol.com//
Wrap...

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

http://richardcraiganderson.com/
Rick's blog is well worth reading. He's a former Maryland State Trooper and after that, worked with the Fed. Air Marshalls. Might have been the guy sitting next to you on that plane flight, but you'd never have known it. :)))
He's also a novelist. Heaven knows he has plenty to write about...and time to kill since he's now retired and lives in Florida. At least he says he's retired.
Wrap...

Friday, September 07, 2012

Secrecy News Blog: http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/
DRONES IN DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE OPERATIONS, AND MORE FROM CRS
"The prospect of drone use inside the United States raises far-reaching issues concerning the extent of government surveillance authority, the value of privacy in the digital age, and the role of Congress in reconciling these issues," says a new report on the subject from the Congressional Research Service.
"This report assesses the use of drones under the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness. A reviewing court's determination of the reasonableness of drone surveillance would likely be informed by location of the search, the sophistication of the technology used, and society's conception of privacy in an age of rapid technological advancement."
"While individuals can expect substantial protections against warrantless government intrusions into their homes, the Fourth Amendment offers less robust restrictions upon government surveillance occurring in public places and perhaps even less in areas immediately outside the home, such as in driveways or backyards. Concomitantly, as technology advances, the contours of what is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment may adjust as people's expectations of privacy evolve."
The new report reviews the relevant Fourth Amendment landscape, the current status of drone technology and applications, and pending legislation on the subject. A copy was obtained by Secrecy News. See Drones in Domestic Surveillance Operations: Fourth Amendment Implications and Legislative Responses, September 6, 2012.
Other noteworthy new CRS reports that Congress has declined to make publicly available include the following.
The "Fiscal Cliff": Macroeconomic Consequences of Tax Increases and Spending Cuts, September 5, 2012
The War Powers Resolution: After Thirty-Eight Years, September 5, 2012
Stafford Act Declarations 1953-2011: Trends and Analyses, and Implications for Congress, August 31, 2012
NFIB v. Sebelius: Constitutionality of the Individual Mandate, September 3, 2012
Search and Seizure Cases in the October 2012 Term of the Supreme Court, September 4, 2012
_______________________________________________
Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the Federation of American Scientists.
The Secrecy News Blog is at:
http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/

Monday, September 03, 2012

Some things just torque me. Like obituaries in newspapers. Someone in your family passes away, so you decide to write a short obituary...and then you check to see what the paper charges to print them.
Holy shit! A bloomin' fortune! So many folks resort, as I did, to just a couple of lines...Name, birth & death date. That's about it. Perhaps they learned from Romney's Bain Capitol outfit.
Wrap...